Of course, you'd have to be about 6'5" (1.95 meters) in order to be anything other than overweight at 207 pounds... soooo... I think it's safe to assume that almost all, if not all of their participants who hit peak earning were overweight.

But it's still odd not to correlate earning with BMI or some other standardized measure of obesity.

Apparently BMI calculators use different standards, because 207lbs was the upper bound for 6',4" on the one I used.

On the other hand, I apparently need to be 6',11" to be 'normal' with my current weight. I'm 6',4", so I guess it's not that bad.

BMI is a pretty straightforward calculation, they all work the same. I was just working it out in my head and rounding everything. Still, what percentage of the population is 6'4? What percentage of their participants? Probably not many, so we can assume they were overweight, but to varying degrees, which is an odd problem to have given they were all in the highest income bracket._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

So in a situation where you started with nothing but an attack on grammar, when in doubt, you attempt to mock my rebuttal as irrelevant and dumb because you don't have anything good to say? The irony is so thick it's palpable. But I agree. If you stopped finding asinine things to pick apart like grammar, we can move on.

Standard procedure: guest will make a bad argument and usually be a shit about it, then complain when people are half as much an asshole back to him as he is now legendary for being, learn nothing, and earth will go through another day

As my pappy used to say, you can't use logic to get someone out of a hole they didn't use logic to get into. Now that's not strictly true, but Guest is also just a generally deplorable person who defends child porn and mocks women who are afraid of rape, so he gets no quarter.

So we're back to that again. You know, I strongly remember how I definitely did not do any of those things, but whatever. You're stuck in asshole mode. I get it.

No, I was there. You don't get to whitewash the past. And you don't get to live it down, either. You're our new Dragonwriter. You need a catchphrase. Have you considered "this ends now?"

No, but you are making things up about me because I definitely did not do any of those things. But it seems when the propaganda train arrives, it never really leaves. And you know what the funny thing is, I would just have to link to it so people can read for themselves.

Of course, you'd have to be about 6'5" (1.95 meters) in order to be anything other than overweight at 207 pounds... soooo... I think it's safe to assume that almost all, if not all of their participants who hit peak earning were overweight.

But it's still odd not to correlate earning with BMI or some other standardized measure of obesity.

Apparently BMI calculators use different standards, because 207lbs was the upper bound for 6',4" on the one I used.

On the other hand, I apparently need to be 6',11" to be 'normal' with my current weight. I'm 6',4", so I guess it's not that bad.

BMI is a pretty straightforward calculation, they all work the same. I was just working it out in my head and rounding everything. Still, what percentage of the population is 6'4? What percentage of their participants? Probably not many, so we can assume they were overweight, but to varying degrees, which is an odd problem to have given they were all in the highest income bracket.

It would appear, for white males Americans, that the average height is ~5',10". And only approximately 25% of the aforementioned group are above 180cm (>5',11"), and only the top 5% are over ~6' in height. Unless I'm reading this chart wrong.

The most amusing thing is that whenever I post, people always bring that up and then they call me an asshole for getting defensive. Bit like a catch-22.

nobody calls you an asshole for being defensive, people call you an asshole for being an asshole. of course you're also being defensive, because people think you are scum and you totally don't agree. but you're also an asshole when you're trying to defend yourself. once upon a sinfest time you did this to people who didn't have it out for you or would even provide sympathetic disagreement to your ugly theories about gender relations, but you managed to burn about every fucking bridge there is and you said things which prove that you are an irresponsible, reprehensible, petulant, immature, and frankly creepy piece of shit.

and you're still here because oh I guess you wanted to stop on by and call people idiots and harp on the culture here? go you.

So in a situation where you started with nothing but an attack on grammar, when in doubt, you attempt to mock my rebuttal as irrelevant and dumb because you don't have anything good to say? The irony is so thick it's palpable. But I agree. If you stopped finding asinine things to pick apart like grammar, we can move on.

Standard procedure: guest will make a bad argument and usually be a shit about it, then complain when people are half as much an asshole back to him as he is now legendary for being, learn nothing, and earth will go through another day

Having nothing to say about actual emotions, I'll get back to the strip. When Monique has been down in the past, it's often been Slick who cheers her up. It's been that way since early in the strip's history. Sometimes she's actively sought him out to help make her feel better. Evidently she's not going to think to do that on this occasion, though. Kind of a shame.

See, sometimes when Slick makes a fool of himself, it's for a greater purpose.

(I guess it's inevitable that someone's going to comment, at length, on how it wouldn't be funny at all if Slick slapped Monique. Which, I suppose, means that the whole alleged "reverse sexism / misandry" thing has been part of the strip for over thirteen years. Go figure.)

Of course, you'd have to be about 6'5" (1.95 meters) in order to be anything other than overweight at 207 pounds... soooo... I think it's safe to assume that almost all, if not all of their participants who hit peak earning were overweight.

But it's still odd not to correlate earning with BMI or some other standardized measure of obesity.

unfortunately you (i) would have to pay to get the original article - unless you have access to the journal of applied psychology? the original article is here - the abstract just says 'weight', but then they also mention obesity, which would be based on bmi, i would think. anyway, i know nothing about their methods. i was figuring it was a peer-reviewed journal, but i just noticed the authors are at a college of business....so i will leave it to you to tell us how good the journal is.

{edit} it did have a link to a paper on obesity and stature vs. earnings for young adults with much better methods in the abstract - turns out (again) that obesity in women = lower pay (at least at age 23), but in this one it's the tall guys who do best; weight not showing an effect._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

So the study was meant to specifically document the "weight to salary" input, their salary in proportion to their weight?

not exactly in proportion to their weight, they were comparing salaries in weight categories - average weight, less than average weight and greater than average weight. but yes, the study was specifically looking at weight and salary._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Here's the original article. I'm not at home, but I'll read it when I get there. The Journal is fine - it's published by the APA. I assume they had good reason to use whatever measures they did, I just can't think of them. Let me know if you make it through the paper before I get home. _________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman